June 5, 2016

Because — as Glenn Reynolds puts it, linking to my "All Presidents threaten the rule of law!" post — Hillary Clinton is "less constrained than Trump would be by the media and the Deep State." The very fact that the NYT notices and calls out Donald Trump is a safeguard of some kind. Hillary, like Obama, will be facilitated.

[I]t’s nice to see the prospect of a Trump administration reminding folks on the left of [the imperial presidency], particularly as the journalist and pundit classes are dominated by lefties. It’s terrible, we’re told, that Trump is issuing veiled threats to journalists — though Obama joked about auditing his enemies, seized journalist phone records and threatened a journalist who refused to reveal sources with imprisonment. Trump would be a warmonger, we’re told, although in fact Barack Obama has been at war longer than any other U.S. president, if without any particular success. Trump would arrogantly ride roughshod over any opposition, though Barack Obama famously used “I won” as an excuse to ignore opponents and bragged that he had a “pen (and) a phone” to bypass congressional disagreement. (And he’s used them a lot.)

130 comments:

A couple of weeks ago (or more) there was some news clips about Congress suing the President for not faithfully executing the laws. If the court takes that and issues a ruling, the President's responce presumably would be along the lines of, "Judge X has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it!" Jackson got away with it, so why not Obama.

Failure to faithfully execute the laws is what the Constitution refers to as "other high crimes and misdemeanors," and the remedy is impeachment; not putting the courts on the spot for judgments they can't enforce.

(Incidentally, on a previous thread Freder Fredersen wanted to know what presidents had expressed more disdain for the Constitution than The Donald. How about Jefferson, Jackson, and Franklin Dellaner Roosevelt?)

"Yeah, that "media constraint" has worked like a charm on Trump so far."

He's currently in a game with the media and leveraging their outrage. So he's encouraged to go big. What he'll do if he's actually in power, we don't know yet, but one might predict that he's bluffing now — making that big opening offer — and he will be constrained if he gets into office.

But I think Glenn's point is that the press will hound him and point out all his problems and that will keep up the political pressure, which he will respond to (in one way or another). But the press has squandered credibility being so biased, and Trump may be able to win by disconnecting people from the press, and that will wreck any constraint that comes from exposure to criticism.

The democrats nuked impeachment as a remedy for presidential misbehavior when they voted that perjury, in a court of law, by the president (the highest law enforcement official in the country), is not a good enough reason to remove him from office. I cannot imagine what crime the next president will have to commit in order for the democrats to seriously consider removing him or her from office. (Other than being a republican, I mean.)

Wasn't it an earlier NYT column in which was said that Trump would be worse than Obama? Which made me chuckle, I mean we all know that Obama is the greatest, so it can only mean that we have a scale of badness on which Obama represents the least bad, and Trump falls somewhere between him and oh I don't know let's say Hitler.

"...A political strategy of “increasing the relative size of one’s political base through distortionary, wealth-reducing policies.” Translation: A politician or a political party can achieve long-term dominance by tipping the balance of votes in their direction through the implementation of policies that strangle and stifle economic growth. Counterintuitively, making a city poorer leads to political success for the engineers of that impoverishment."

The democrat party destroys private wealth at all stages (except those in Hollywood -they stay untouched). See De:toilet.

The government, the actual millions of civilian employees, especially those in management positions, enthusiastically support the Democrats, and largely despise the rest of the US population and hate Republicans with a passion. Thats one reason Democrats are especially dangerous in government.Democrats ride a willing horse, Republicans have to tame a bronco.

I think "De toilet" is a reference to Detroit. I have never heard that before. There is no doubt, however, that Coleman Young was a master of the Curley effect. He viewed every white family that left Detroit as a reduction in the number of potential opponents to his policies.

Trump is being himself. When he tries to act 'presidential and thoughtful', after being encouraged to do so by his daughter, it's so obviously a foreign way of being for him. It can be easily observed by those not bamboozled by him, he looks like a bad actor trying to play a part. He tries to act normal but it's not him, he quickly falls back in to what appears to be a comfortable way of being for him, which is misogynistic, racist, bigoted, Islamaphobic, narcissistic, basically a big mouthed jerk. THAT is who the 'real' Trump is. Those who expect he will pivot into some other sort of person need a reality check.

misogynistic: Trump, despite several divorces, never led a bimbo eruption squad. racist: Trump never sat through 20 years of Rev. Wright's sermons bigoted: Trump never equated law-abiding gun owners with terrorists and mass murderers Islamophobic: Trump never attacked Libya and left it to ISIL narcissistic: Trump never accused the entire country of being a vast right wing conspiracy to cover for the illicit affairs of his spouse jerk: Hillary, every time she opens her mouth, insults and demonizes her political opposition, and hey, it isn't Trump supporters attacking leftists, is it?

Pee Wee Herman, I believe, said something like, "I am rubber, you are glue, your lies bounce off me and stick to you."

"One of the things I'm going to do if I win, and I hope we do and we're certainly leading. I'm going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We're going to open up those libel laws. So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they're totally protected," Trump said."

Oh please. So if Trump gets his way, how will the press effectively monitor Trump? No one is concerned about the reining in of free speech by imposing monetary 'punishments' on them?

"Those who expect he will pivot into some other sort of person need a reality check."

Nice try but no cigar, as Bill Clinton would think, if not say.

Trump is well known by a lot of people who say the public persona is not the way he is in private.

I suspect he has figured out that he got where he is this year with that public persona. He may not change that public face much but the way he handles himself in private might be quite different. GW Bush was tongue tied in public but said to quite witty and clever in private. Hubert Humphrey was a stiff in public but my father -in-law knew him pretty well and said he was very witty and friendly in private.

I thought Biden looked like a fool (Which he probably is) in the debate with Ryan in 2012 but it put Ryan off his game and Biden was widely, at least by Democrats, said to have won that debate.

This may be the year when bluster trumps (so to speak) formal speeches.

The American automobile industry is doing just fine; it is just that it is being managed by Toyota, Honda, Volkswagen, Volvo (of Sweden), etc.

Meanwhile, most "American" cars are now assembled in Canada, I think. How did that happen? And why is "Canada good," but "Mexico bad?" Because the Canadian unions are UAW subsidiaries and the Mexican unions are not?

"Miriam said...Trump is being himself. When he tries to act 'presidential and thoughtful', after being encouraged to do so by his daughter, it's so obviously a foreign way of being for him. It can be easily observed by those not bamboozled by him, he looks like a bad actor trying to play a part. He tries to act normal but it's not him, he quickly falls back in to what appears to be a comfortable way of being for him, which is misogynistic, racist, bigoted, Islamaphobic, narcissistic, basically a big mouthed jerk. THAT is who the 'real' Trump is. Those who expect he will pivot into some other sort of person need a reality check."

It's so odd that in his nearly 70 years of time on earth there aren't scores of women. and minorities, that he has come across, that echo your position. To the contrary, they often praise.

Whatever his shortcomings, I am fairly certain that Trump will not appoint a black supremacist gangster with a blatant contempt for the rule of law as Attorney General. And yes, after eight years of Obama, that is the height at which the bar rests.

Oh please. So if Trump gets his way, how will the press effectively monitor Trump? No one is concerned about the reining in of free speech by imposing monetary 'punishments' on them?

The likely Democratic presidential nominee has said that her litmus test for who would appoint to the Supreme Court is whether they will overturn an earlier decision that making a movie criticizing her was protected speech under the First Amendment.

So no, Trump isn’t the one who is most likely to try to “reign[] in free speech.”

If Trump wins, it will be due to the fact that Hillary is well-loathed, and not because Trump is well-loved. The Press will become watch dogs the likes of which we haven't seen since... well, since the last time a Republican was in the Oval Office. And Trump will be up against the GOP in Congress, and the angry right-wing punditry, many of whom strongly resent that Trump co-opted "their" party. These forces will work as a check on whatever despotic tendencies Trump may have. And finally, he will not become a dictator because the Democrat base and NEVERTRUMPers, combined with the idependents and others who held their nose to vote for him simply to stop Hillary, will not allow him to become one.

Whereas with Queen Hillary it will be the same old, same old: Democrats flout or actively break the law, the press yawns and the millions of Dem minions in the bureaucracy actively cover for their masters, while the GOP establishment rolls over like a dog who wants a belly rub.

Pick one.

PS A few months ago I had concerns it would be risky to put Trump in charge because I feared the actions of his purportedly fanatical supporters. However, Trump supporters seem quite reasonable when compared to the rioting of the opposition.

buwaya puti said:"The government, the actual millions of civilian employees, especially those in management positions, enthusiastically support the Democrats, and largely despise the rest of the US population and hate Republicans with a passion. Thats one reason Democrats are especially dangerous in government.Democrats ride a willing horse, Republicans have to tame a bronco."

Very true.The Democrats have a lot of control via the govt bureaucray leviathan. Add a compliant media, dominance in social media, a potential majority in the Supreme Court, an impotent Congress, and this power paves the road to an entrenched corrupt one-party state. The US becoming an economically stunted "banana republic" style dictatorship is far more likely should Hillary or any Dem win the Oval office for eight more years. This is what motivates some of us who don't like Trump but are willing to consider voting for him this fall.

If the German public would've acted out against Hitler we wouldn't have had the holocaust. Why put hope in a person who has already publicly stated what is his anti constitutional plans for this country are? That is insane.

If the German public would've acted out against Hitler we wouldn't have had the holocaust. Why put hope in a person who has already publicly stated what is his anti constitutional plans for this country are? That is insane.

Agreed but Obama will be gone in about seven months. Hopefully enough of those who were "insane" enough to vote for him not once but twice will have learned their lesson.

Suppose Hillary or Trump become President. And suppose one of them does something deserving of removal from office.

What are the chances Clinton actually gets removed? Remember the line from Trump about shooting someone in the street and his supporters would still support him? Well, Clinton could shoot people and she wouldn't be impeached.

Now let's take a look at Trump. Does anyone seriously think the Republicans in Congress wouldn't join with the Democrats in Congress to remove him if he did something worthy of removal?

Of course they would! Not only would they do it, some of them would do it smugly and tell all of us, "We told you so!"

And that's how this has to be viewed.

Clinton will be able to get away with murder while in office. Trump will be held to account.

Trump would be a warmonger, we’re told, although in fact Barack Obama has been at war longer than any other U.S. president, if without any particular success.

What would be a particular sign of "success," to Mr. Reynolds? Over 3,000 dead on the homeland by turning 4 domestic commercial airliners against our own financial district skyscrapers and the Pentagon and Congress? The thousands more dead troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and the hundreds of thousands of innocent dead Iraqis slain in the process?

"Right-wing" is just shorthand for "fried brains." "We like violence, and we won't let facts or restraint get in the way."

Just call yourselves the Party of War. And re-fashion Old Glory to have a raised fist with a semi-automatic rifle on it, a la Hezbollah.

Biased!? So far the press has been overly kind to him. An unbiased press would point out that he is a pathological liar who doesn't care if what he says one day directly contradicts what he said the day before. Yet, they let him get away with it. Somebody needs to have the guts to say during an interview, "I'm not going to let you sit here and lie to me, you did say Saudi Arabia should have access to nuclear weapons.

What you have now is the result of eight years of economic paralysis, with real conditions deteriorating. I suspect we have passed the "high" of the current recovery, and are about to find a new low. This looked like a very bad year going in and I'm afraid it is turning out that way. The government has done what it can within the set of tools that they are comfortable using, but to turn things around, truly, they will have to betray their biggest supporters in an election year. As I have also said, over and again, you arent electing a person so much as a tribe, or a culture. The Obama tribe/culture is very little different from the Clinton one, so if you want similar results you know whom to back. If anyone wants to contest my take on the development of economic conditions over the last eight years, this is an excellent topic for a substansive debate.

So he's encouraged to go big. What he'll do if he's actually in power, we don't know yet, but one might predict that he's bluffing now — making that big opening offer — and he will be constrained if he gets into office.

My vague recollection is that you also had a Wishcast for what Obama would do as President. And I don't think that forecast verified.

Blogger Rhythm and Balls said...Hillary was a Goldwater Girl, eric. She'll be a more belligerent Republican than Trump. You should root for her.

I might, but there are a few problems.

1) She has a D next to her name. This means the Press will treat her uncritically. They'll let her get away with murder, probably literally. And she can do whatever she likes without fear of being impeached and removed from office, thanks to the Press.

2) She will actively work to take away my 2nd amendment right to bear arms. The first step in this process will be for her to appoint a liberal judge to the Supreme Court who will help to be a rubber stamp in this direction.

3) She will actively work to take away my 1st amendment rights. One to freedom of speech and another to practice my religion. She will do this by appointing another liberal judge who will be a rubber stamp in this direction.

4) Every criticism of her, like Obama, will be blamed on the fact that she is female. Therefore, she won't have to be self critical, she can just blame everything her gender.

Even if Trump and Hillary were identical in their belief's, I'd have to enthusiastically vote for Trump, because he has an R next to his name. Which means that the media will treat him like an enemy and be sure to inform me of his doings and hold him to account.

What amazes me is that those who thought Obama usurped his authority as President, seem to be so nonchalant about Trump's very vocal plans to make Obama look like a piker when it comes to authoritarian overstep of the executive branch. Have you people lost your minds? I can't understand the destructive mindset these Trump followers have. It's the burn if all down mentality. Be careful, what you hold dear may be burned down right along with what you abhore. Wild fires do that.

She has a D next to her name. This means the Press will treat her uncritically. They'll let her get away with murder, probably literally.

Not true! Even Trump says that he could gun a man down on 5th Avenue and get away with it!

And she can do whatever she likes without fear of being impeached and removed from office, thanks to the Press.

Nah. I think they are actually starting to get more critical now at least vis-a-vis the emails.

And you won't need 2nd Amendment rights after all the war Hillary will launch. Think of how much safer you'll be after every country is blown up. Trump is a sissy who thinks Bush's war in Iraq was a mistake. How can you trust a man like that on military matters?!!!!

Trump may well bring the Republican Party back from the brink of implosion by transforming it into a nationalistic fortress America organization, but I think the former outcome is more likely. Even if his mouth is talented enough to pull it off electorally, no subsequent Republican will ever find a way to demean as many people and potentially get away with it politically. It really is one of his (only) talents.

Now if Trump tried to gun a man down in Spanish Harlem that might be a different story. But I'm simply judging the man by the standard he raised. He said he could get away with gunning a man down on 5th Avenue (I believe it was 5th Avenue in broad daylight) and get away with it, and I'm sticking to his story! Because as we all know, he never stretches the truth or tells any falsehoods. He guarantees it.

What predictions have you made, "Rhythm and Balls", that would assure me of your predictive acuity?

Well, I'm mostly talking tongue-in-cheek, Birkel. But you can rest assured I'm nowhere near as stupid as the MSM pundit class who predicted Jeb Bush running against Hillary. I knew it was going to be Trump from the minute he announced and verbally took on all those Mexican drug addicts and rapists and nuclear terrorists and whatever else he imagines they are all worth being accused of. The ones who aren't "good people", anyway.

I get hunches, but I make no claims of infallibility. I'm not Trump, after all. He's the one who can only win. Including those four bankruptcy proceedings. He won those too. Technically.

Lets put it this way. If Trump is president the media will make no stone is left unturned when they go after him for Trump U. But when it comes to Hillary's emails they will make sure to turn over absolutely one stone. And then call it a day.If you want a president that is actually accountable and you want a media that does its job, that president cant be a liberal.

Rhythm and balls wrote:What would be a particular sign of "success," to Mr. Reynolds? Over 3,000 dead on the homeland by turning 4 domestic commercial airliners against our own financial district skyscrapers and the Pentagon and Congress? The thousands more dead troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and the hundreds of thousands of innocent dead Iraqis slain in the process?

"Right-wing" is just shorthand for "fried brains." "We like violence, and we won't let facts or restraint get in the way."

Who said "We came, we saw, he died"? After having a little military escursion into Libya for absolutely no reason. And didt even consult congress before doing so. And left the place completely destabilized.Now tell us again about how its the Republicans that have fried brains and like violence.

Ritmo wrote:And you won't need 2nd Amendment rights after all the war Hillary will launch. Think of how much safer you'll be after every country is blown up. Trump is a sissy who thinks Bush's war in Iraq was a mistake. How can you trust a man like that on military matters?!!!!

So, you just got through telling us how Repubs are the party of war, but that Trump is a sissy boy, who I guess WONT START WARS? Because he's a sissy man? Sounds like you'd like the cut of his jib.

Ritmo stated: The thousands more dead troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and the hundreds of thousands of innocent dead Iraqis slain in the process?

So, you do know that Obama escalated in Afghanistan right? And you do know that 3/4 of the US deaths that occured in Afghanistan occurred under Obama right? And you do know that Obama just sent some troops back into Iraq right?

I wont argue for or against said deployments but at least assign the deaths that occurred under Obama to Obama. The dems seem perfectly capable of killing people in wars.

Miriam wrote: seem to be so nonchalant about Trump's very vocal plans to make Obama look like a piker when it comes to authoritarian overstep of the executive branch.

Unlike Dems though repubs have no problem holding him accountable if he did exceed his authority. Because we dont like him anyway. He's already on probation. Let him overstep his bounds just a little bit and see what happens to him from his own side.Also, these are just "suggestions". He's already modultated his positions when it was pointed out to him that they were too divisive or stupid, frankly. He will similarly bend when president.He would actually run, my guess, as a moderate. THe bombast, is largely, a persona. However, if he were to exceed his authority the media will go after him (unlike with Obama or Hillary) the dems will go after him (unlike obama and hillary) and the repubs ESPECIALLY woudl go after him.He will have no leeway to act like a tyrant.The media FINALLY would hold the president accountable. You wont get that if a dem is in the office.

Again, if Trump had his way the media would be defanged, they would be fighting one lawsuit after another put forth by the Trump Administration DOJ. It would behoove the right to take Trump seriously when he makes threats that run contrary to the Constitution.

WRONG. Obstructionist Republican austerity measures eroded the growth we could have had, even though our economy is exponentially better than it was under what Bush left. Not that a brainless ostrich like you can acknowledge or understand that.

I predicted fewer people working. Check.

Than under the depression Bush gave us? I don't think so. Unemployment is a LAGGING indicator, you dildo. And HIS recession gave us 10%+ of it. We're now under 5%. Sounds better to me. But then, facts are more important to me than being an unpaid RNC shill is to you.

I predicted the growth of the federal government.

Oh. Wow. Good for you. And such a big deal to the lives of any average American who wants more Medicare and SSI than military "defense" contracts. PORK IT UP, BIG BOY!

I predicted an exploding federal debt.

Well, Nostradamus. That's what happens when George W. Bush gets Hank Paulson to come to Congress, demand $700 billion at the point of a gun, and bail out the banks to that tune. When you cause recessions, you lose money - and have to spend to either keep the destruction to the American economy minimal or avoid spending in order to maximize it (i.e. the preferred Republican solution. Republicans love taking the poor and the working class hostage to their economic aims and couldn't care less about the damage they'll inflict on the American economy to advance their political aims). So the next time you cause a depression, as Republicans love to do, keep that in mind.

But I understand that as a Republican not taking responsibility for anything is how you roll.

Instead, being an idiotically blind partisan asshole is your chief aim. And you excel at it without equal.

jr seems more obsessed than usual today with my comments. But I don't respond to incoherent 3rd graders. Especially incoherent 3rd graders obsessed with partisan politics. A bad start in life for any kid.

Again, if Trump had his way the media would be defanged, they would be fighting one lawsuit after another put forth by the Trump Administration DOJ. It would behoove the right to take Trump seriously when he makes threats that run contrary to the Constitution.

Some of them do. The other half of them are positively giddy and beside themselves, convulsing with the possibility of all that ANTI-JUDICIARY RED MEAT. Oh what an emotionally satisfying roller coaster to hear Trump stick it to judges in an unprecedentedly personal, obnoxious and hostile way. If the right-wing could execute judges for going against their biases those ninnies would do just that. Hence, the massive Trump-love by his favorites, the "poorly educated."

Has unemployment not decreased to less than half of what W's depression increased it to, or has it not?

And despite all that, have congressional Republicans not obstructed every economic initiative Obama wanted, or have they not?

I realize that being moronically hostile to Obama gives you the sense of "balance" that the MSM and boring, lukewarm intellects of Wisconsin demand of you, MM. But give it a fucking break already. There's a reason Obama was re-elected decisively over a guy who admitted that he sees, as almost all Republicans do (see Michael K above), half of our country as Enemy #1 to the American Economy, and if you don't get that, you never will.

Or you could always change fields and fill an endowed position at the Tim Russets School of Journalism. But people have choices nowadays. They don't need to toe the MSM "false-balance" line. Unless I suppose if they live in parts of the country that no one really wants to visit all that much.

Rhythm and Balls:"Trump is a sissy who thinks Bush's war in Iraq was a mistake."

The essential defect of Trump's view that "Bush's war in Iraq was a mistake" is not that it's "sissy", but rather that his view is based on legal and factual error - which bears on assessing his judgement as a candidate for Commander in Chief.

The premise of Trump's position is that Iraq was exculpated on the WMD issue, but that premise is demonstrably false.

According to the "governing standard of Iraqi compliance" (UNSCR 1441) and fact record for the Gulf War ceasefire (UNSCR 687) disarmament process, Iraq's guilt of proscribed armament was established. To cure its guilt of proscribed armament, Iraq was required to meet its burden with the procedure outlined in UNSCR 687.

From the outset of the Gulf War ceasefire, Saddam refused to comply and disarm as mandated and as he agreed to do in order to suspend the Gulf War short of regime change.

Accordingly, in 2002, the UN Security Council decided "to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions", "Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991)", and "to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" (UNSCR 1441).

Concurrently, Congress instructed the President "to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" (P.L. 107-243).

Yet in his "final opportunity to comply" (UNSCR 1441), Saddam opted again not to disarm as mandated. Instead, on March 7, 2003, UNMOVIC reported to the UN Security Council, "about 100 unresolved disarmament issues ... Little of the detail in these declarations, such as production quantities, dates of events and unilateral destruction activities, can be confirmed. Such information is critical to an assessment of the status of disarmament. Furthermore, in some instances, UNMOVIC has information that conflicts with the information in the declaration."

In other words, after 12 years, including 4 months of inspections in his "final opportunity to comply", Saddam had failed to comply with even the basic step of the ceasefire disarmament process, a total verified declaration that accounted for Iraq's entire WMD program, which Iraq had been mandated to provide within 15 days - in April 1991.

The post hoc Iraq Survey Group corroborated UNMOVIC and further substantiated President Bush's decision for Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF): "ISG judges that Iraq failed to comply with UNSCRs" - "we have clear evidence of his [Saddam's] intent to resume WMD" - "the Iraqis never intended to meet the spirit of the UNSC’s resolutions...[o]utward acts of compliance belied a covert desire to resume WMD activities" - "it has become evident to ISG that [Iraqi] officials were involved in concealment and deception activities".

The truth is at the decision point for OIF, Iraq had not disarmed as mandated. Saddam was in fact rearming in violation of UNSCR 687 and evidentially in material breach across the board of the Gulf War ceasefire mandates, including and especially the (WMD) disarmament mandates of UNSCR 687, terrorism mandates of UNSCR 687, and humanitarian mandates of UNSCR 688.

Contrary to Trump's position that "Bush's war in Iraq was a mistake", the President's decision for OIF was correct on the law and facts.

See the explanation of the law and policy, fact basis - the why - of the decision for OIF, which includes the answers to "Did Bush lie his way to war with Iraq?" & "Was Operation Iraqi Freedom legal?".

Sept. 11, 2002: Howard Stern asks Trump if he supports invading Iraq. Trump answers hesitantly. “Yeah, I guess so. You know, I wish it was, I wish the first time it was done correctly.”

Jan. 28, 2003: Trump appears on Fox Business’ “Your World with Neil Cavuto,” on the night of President Bush’s State of the Union address. Trump says he expects to hear “a lot of talk about Iraq and the problems,” and the economy. He urges Bush to make a decision on Iraq. “Either you attack or you don’t attack,” he says. But he offers no opinion on what Bush should do.

Again Trump, the clueless chameleon, spews bs on a day to day basis, bless his little heart.

As the Obama economy is wonderful, I look forward to Hillary! and Sanders lauding it extensively in their presidential runs. What's that you say?

I say they could have helped, but instead made it Priority #1 to make as much perception of underperformance accrue to him as possible. They did this by obstructing anything that would have helped that they could get their dirty hands on.

The people agree. But due to the magic of gerrymandering and your own idiocy, you don't understand that.

You're arguing with yourself, ass-wrangler. Hope you find yourself convincing. The country doesn't.

Oh wow. An MSM pundit-class article that doesn't really say anything about Obama, I'd bet, but instead allows you to obstruct the discussion on how to change the longstanding policies that have decimated the middle class and American manufacturing.

The article should have been re-titled, "The part of Birkel's tail that looks just attractive enough for him to chase indefinitely."

The media have weakened themselves due to their blatant partisanship. Their warning that "Trump could threaten the rule of law" (gasp!) -- or that he's Hitler, or a racist, or a he-man woman-hater-- is not going to work because the leftist media has cried "wolf" over every GOP candidate everyone can remember, including and especially the boy scout Mitt Romney! The media played a large part in creating Trump, and they get what they deserve from him.

An honest media, however, has nothing to fear from a President Trump. If he's corrupt they can go after him on the facts. Trump can't sue them all for stating facts. His fanatical supporters may ignore factual media criticism of Trump, if Trump is elected, but no one else will. If the media actually does their job by reporting facts honestly, they may regain some respect from the electorate and end up stronger after a Trump presidency.

Sept. 11, 2002: Howard Stern asks Trump if he supports invading Iraq. Trump answers hesitantly. “Yeah, I guess so. You know, I wish it was, I wish the first time it was done correctly.”

Jan. 28, 2003: Trump appears on Fox Business’ “Your World with Neil Cavuto,” on the night of President Bush’s State of the Union address. Trump says he expects to hear “a lot of talk about Iraq and the problems,” and the economy. He urges Bush to make a decision on Iraq. “Either you attack or you don’t attack,” he says. But he offers no opinion on what Bush should do.

Again Trump, the clueless chameleon, spews bs on a day to day basis, bless his little heart.

Hillary stood on the coffins of dead veterans and knowingly lied to their parents about why they died. She told them it was a protest over a film and that they would put him in jail. She and Obama put that man in jail. A US citizen.

She knew hours after the attack it was long planned by Ansar al Sharia and she told the Egyptian president as much.

It is inarguable that Hillary lied on the coffins of veterans. To their grieving parents. It is inarguable she put a US citizen in jail in order to buttress her lie.

No decent human being can support Hillary Clinton. She will never be president of the United States.

Left unsaid is that Hillary is a guaranteed end to the rule of law in the United States.

She has committed thousands of felonies. I had a TS/SCI clearance. I would be in jail for life if I did what she did. Bradly Manning already is for doing less. The only reason she is not in jail is because she is wealthy, powerful, and a democrat. Even a powerful republican would be in jail long ago.

The middle class, shrinking as it is, still supports this country. The middle class is being abused by the people currently in power and already at a breaking point. If they see a corrupt disgusting human being like Hillary Clinton elected there will be no respect for the morality of the law. People will stop willingly supporting it. Tax avoidance will become the norm. Mortgages will be looked at as voluntary. Property taxes will be ignored in mass.

If there are enough leaches and parasites in this country to elect someone like Hillary Clinton you all can figure out how to support yourselves. That is the least amount of blood scenario. I originally typed best case scenario but I have something else in mind for the best case scenario.

shiloh:"Jan. 28, 2003:... Trump says he expects to hear “a lot of talk about Iraq and the problems,” and the economy. He urges Bush to make a decision on Iraq. “Either you attack or you don’t attack,” he says. But he offers no opinion on what Bush should do."

The context of the Trump quote is apparently the day of, and apparently ahead of, the 2003 State of the Union.

January 28, 2003 is also the day after Hans Blix had updated the UN Security Council with a scathing report on Iraq's response to UNMOVIC, that Saddam had essentially carried forward his defiance and intransigence from the UNSCOM inspections.

For example, excerpt from Blix's January 27th update:"The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed. Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tons, and that the quality was poor and the product unstable. Consequently, it was said that the agent was never weaponized. Iraq said that the small quantity of [the] agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared. There are also indications that the agent was weaponized."

Per UNSCR 1441, the mandated reporting date for UNMOVIC and IAEA was January 26, 2003. That meant Blix's January 27th update was sufficient to conclude that Iraq had failed its "final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" (UNSCR 1441) and thereby triggered the "serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations" (UNSCR 1441).

Trump's comments, as quoted, implies he understood the significance of Blix's report to the UN Security Council, which had placed President Bush in position to use force to "bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235), and that with Blix's update the day before, Bush could announce a decision to invade Iraq in the 2003 State of the Union.

As Trump's comments reflect, the public could only speculate that day how President Bush would react to the Blix update.

As we know now, rather than responding to the Blix update by announcing a decision to invade Iraq in the 2003 State of the Union, President Bush opted to extend the deadline for Saddam's "final opportunity to comply" (UNSCR 1441) by another month-plus, and instead, ratchet up the pressure on Iraq to comply and disarm as mandated.

Unfortunately, instead of responding to the gift overtime "final opportunity to comply" with the mandated compliance and disarmament, Saddam opted to fall back on the characteristic "tactics of delay and deception tactics" (Clinton) from when President Clinton had threatened the use of force while enforcing the ceasefire disarmament process, especially leading up to Operation Desert Fox in December 1998.

A month-plus after Blix's January 27th update, with Saddam continuing to defy the "governing standard of Iraqi compliance" (UNSCR 1441) despite Bush's extra effort to compel the mandated compliance, President Bush responded to the March 6, 2003 UNMOVIC report of "about 100 unresolved disarmament issues" with Operation Iraqi Freedom.

See the answers to "Why did resolution of the Saddam problem require a threat of regime change?" & "Did Bush allow enough time for the inspections?".

Rhythm and Balls:"Boy I sure do hope you're glad you got all that off your chest, elcee."

It clearly matters. The judgement value of the candidates' view on the decision for OIF is evident from the comments.

As such, in order for the public to properly evaluate the candidates by their view on the decision for OIF, it's critical to correct common misconceptions and set the record straight on the actual grounds of the Iraq intervention so that the public can make an informed judgement.

No decent human being can support Hillary Clinton. She will never be president of the United States.

I think she has a solid shot. I mean, we elected a loser as President for the last 7 years. Even Althouse was fooled. Why would Hillary be any different. 47% of this nation is going to vote for her no matter what. It doesn't take much more to put her over the finish line.

With the rise of the #NeverTrump movement, I think many conservatives have given up. And that's not good. Once the conservatives give up, who will build everything? Who will pay for their food stamps? Who is going to fight and did to defend this nation?

So yeah, Hillary stands a good shot at being elected. The question then becomes, what do we do when we see the future and all we see is ruin?

Oh, it truly is wonderful, Birkel, that you are so concerned about making sure that moms and seniors are put back into stores as Wal-Mart greeters, where you apparently believe they belong. I suppose next you'll be championing maternity leave or health care or other benefits.

Well, no you won't, actually. As everyone knows, those demographics are just props for you to conveniently use against Obama in your ever-loving quest for finding an unemployment metric that makes him look bad enough for your eyes. (I can never remember... is it now the U6 that makes him totally evil now? One can never keep track with all the changing goalposts necessary for continually redefining what makes him the most evilest president in all history).

Achilles: Avoid the Romneyism of believing that a bunch of leeches and parasites are bringing America down, or behind Hillary. (Unless you mean the leeches and parasites in board rooms and C-suites. Funny how they're never leeches or parasites).

Hillary's support comes from the following:

1. The perception of her as a weathered warrior who has been beat up by Republicans with a gripes just as vituperative and personal as those legitimate.

2. The think tanks behind the defense industries.

3. Wall Street.

4. Grizzled old 60+-something feminists.

5. The DNC and Democratic establishment.

6. A not insignificant number of the GOP establishment.

7. People who justifiably see Donald Trump as a divisive and crazy, flip-flopping wacko who will say anything to get elected and doesn't really care what happens the next day - other than for a wall too extravagant to ever be built.

8. Average, ordinary Democrats and independents - some of whom may or may not be "parasites", depending on how you define them (Romney's definition apparently would have included a sizable chunk of our men and women in uniform in the armed services, etc.)

“Killary Clinton is stealing the nomination and the system is rigged against Bernie Sanders,” said the two young white guys standing behind me in line.

From an article in the Daily Beast called "The White Entitlement of Some Sanders Supporters" Sanders supporters are racists, doncha know.

I loved this bit:

We should have been able to see eye to eye, but we could not. The main source of their frustration was merely the fact that they had lost. The fact that she is ahead in the popular vote, has won more primaries and caucuses, and has earned more delegates was to them a minor nuisance. They had their absurd talking points and were unwilling to deviate into reality.

I guess this is what happens when two Democrats with different talking points, after all, the writer lists his first as if they settled the issue, then complains that the other guy won't listen or deviate from his talking points and enter "reality." One of the funniest talking points of the liberals in recent years was that conservatives had no sense of irony.

It is also ironic that he somehow believes that Hillary's whole campaign isn't predicated on the strongly held idea among the big donors and their lapdogs at the DNC that Hillary is "entitled" to win. When it's Bernie who wants to win, it's "white privilege" but when it's Hillary, it's 'social justice.'

So he's just like Mitt Romney.John McCain. George BushBob DoleGeorge Bush SrReaganFordNixonGoldwaterEisenhower

The constant repeating of the same untrue criticism doesn't make it accurate.

If the German public would've acted out against Hitler we wouldn't have had the holocaust. Why put hope in a person who has already publicly stated what is his anti constitutional plans for this country are? That is insane.

Like COMPLETELY opening the borders?Suppressing free speech during an election season?Seizing guns?

I would hope CIA agents overseas would quit, en masse, if Hillary wins. Their lives are as good as over if she wins anyway.

"Right-wing" is just shorthand for "fried brains." "We like violence, and we won't let facts or restraint get in the way."

Said the guy just accusing Bush of allowing 9/11 to happen while defending Obama's non-stop war for 7 years now...

What amazes me is that those who thought Obama usurped his authority as President, seem to be so nonchalant about Trump's very vocal plans to make Obama look like a piker when it comes to authoritarian overstep of the executive branch.

Nah. I think they are actually starting to get more critical now at least vis-a-vis the emails.

Yeah, she just broke "rules" not "laws". She made "errors in judgment". Nothing about the rampant illegality of her actions. Bush didn't get this benefit of the doubt over Plame --- which Hillary trumped many times over.

Why was Rosemary Woods a cause celebre when we have the STATE DEPARTMENT EDITING VIDEOS OF PRESS CONFERENCES?

Again, if Trump had his way the media would be defanged, they would be fighting one lawsuit after another put forth by the Trump Administration DOJ.

As opposed to a DOJ that will do nothing about repeated illegal actions by the government? WAY better.

Note: I'm dealing with reality. You're still with hypotheticals.

Again Trump, the clueless chameleon, spews bs on a day to day basis, bless his little heart.

Funny...Hillary supported it then, too.

The middle class, shrinking as it is, still supports this country.

I don't. And I'm teaching my sons that they owe this country NOTHING and that being a citizen is utterly meaningless.

If Putin decided to kill the President, I would hardly be outraged. I don't like Putin, I don't like the President --- seems like a wash to me.

Bernie Sanders is going to fix that.There is going to be full employment. 100%.The currently unemployed are going to have jobs filling pot holes with rich people.At $15.00 an hour which will help the economy.We have an endless supply of rich people with which to fill pot holes.Because.....................Bernie Sanders!

Achilles is a decent (though occasionally misguided) man with reasonable objections. As the MSM is finally learning, they really are worth hearing and taking seriously.

Not all Republicans are evil ignoranuses like Michael K, or who endlessly obfuscate like Birkel or whatever. Not all of them are in it just to bring some (generic) Democrat down."

You obvious try to get a bigger picture of the why's and wherefore's of Althouse bloggers and that's a good thing to try to get a in-depth picture. My curiosity is why some of these folk stick to a particular blog like glue beside the venting process. There's obviously more of an opportunity for cons to make friends as they are a 95/5 majority.

>

Achilles is practically in tears at the prospect of Hillary becoming president. She is such a god awful person re: every aspect of her life that it will surely be the end of civilization if she is elected. Except many here say the same thing re: Obama.

Don't have an opinion re: Birkel. MK is just an old curmudgeon/dinosaur who usually doesn't agree or disagree w/a post, rather enjoys making non sequitur snide remarks and then offering a book to read that will increase your political prowess.

>

Bottom line they are pissed at the prospect of losing another presidential election that they feel should be quite winnable. And yes, "they" have done well in low turn out mid-terms recently but the presidency is the crown jewel that keeps slipping farther and farther away as older white guys continue to pass.

Mrs. Clinton's latter position is that she voted for the 2002 AUMF (Public Law 107-243) to provide the President the necessary leverage for "coercive diplomacy" to enforce Iraq's compliance with the UN inspections, which is partially correct.

However, as her latter position 'evolved' under partisan pressure, Clinton subsequently misrepresented the operative enforcement procedure that defined the decision for Operation Iraqi Freedom in order to disclaim her Senate vote with accusation that the decision for OIF abused the 2002 AUMF. That accusation is incorrect on the law and facts. The evidence shows that the decision for OIF hewed to Congressional instruction in the 2002 AUMF.

The essential defect(s) of Mrs. Clinton's latter position is she mischaracterized the operative historical context for the UNSCR 1441 inspections, the "governing standard of Iraqi compliance" (UNSCR 1441) that was enforced under the 2002 AUMF, the Congressional instruction to "ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" (P.L. 107-243), the UNMOVIC findings in the UNSCR 1441 inspections, the UN Security Council consideration of the UNMOVIC findings, and the standard for the determination to use force in section 3(b) of the 2002 AUMF by which President Bush determined to use force with OIF.

While mischaracterizing the UNMOVIC findings that confirmed "Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687" (UNSCR 1441), which were the principal trigger for OIF, Clinton ignores the various other fact findings that also confirmed Saddam was in material breach of the Gulf War ceasefire mandates enforced under the 2002 AUMF.

For example, the Iraq Survey Group reported, "ISG judges that Iraq failed to comply with UNSCRs" and "the Iraqis never intended to meet the spirit of the UNSC’s resolutions" in breach of UNSCR 687 et al, the Iraqi Perspectives Project reported, "evidence shows that Saddam's use of terrorist tactics and his support for terrorist groups remained strong up until the collapse of the regime" in breach of UNSCR 687, and the UN Commission on Human Rights reported, "systematic, widespread and extremely grave violations of human rights and of international humanitarian law by the Government of Iraq" in breach of UNSCR 688.

In addition, Clinton's later claim that her Senate vote for the 2002 AUMF opposed Iraqi regime change elides section 4 of the 2002 AUMF, which invoked section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 and "expected" regime change would result from Saddam's "final opportunity to comply" (UNSCR 1441).

Like Trump's basic legal and factual error bears on assessing him as a candidate for Commander in Chief, Clinton's prevarication bears on assessing her as a candidate for Commander in Chief.

To properly assess Clinton's latter position on her Senate vote for the 2002 AUMF and the decision for OIF, see again the explanation of the law and policy, fact basis of the decision for OIF. The scope of Clinton's misrepresentations are wide enough that I can only recommend reviewing all the answers in the explanation for a sufficient understanding of the 2002 AUMF and the decision for OIF to judge her.

Was disagreeing with your original premise re: 6/6/16, 6:55 AM post. And you didn't mention war-mongering idiots originally, so as always reading comprehension is not your strong suit even when it comes to your own posts.

Indeed, as you seem somewhat discombobulated almost to the point of anger.

Hey there, Rusty! Can you pull your stupid old-man hat brim further down over your stupid face? It's not cutting out your vision (or your circulation) as well as you obviously need it to. But thanks for the advice on how low wages and poverty are needed because: Economy! Or whatever. It's a great position for a nobody for you to have. Hey, if it weren't for people earning even less than you do, how would you be able to feel any pride in life?

What a fucking dilemma. Take out your issues elsewhere, Chief Poor-mouth Elitist.

The NYT is in full ruling-class mode. Every day there are several articles telling us why Trump is a threat to democracy as we know it and Hillary is the only hope to save the republic. News pages, opinion pages, doesn't matter: Full throttle. Now we are to sympathize with poor John McCain for Trump's comments about him -- never mind the paper's 2008 pre-election (utterly discredited) piece speculating that Trump was getting it on with a lobbyist. The San Jose anti-Trump violence was cast as a passions-run-high-on-both-sides piece and illustrated with a photo of two people arguing. It goes on and on.

Trump isn't my kind of candidate but, increasingly, the New York Times isn't my kind of newspaper.